[governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy

[David Conrad]

Paul,

On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe the vast majority want "consistent worldwide laws" to not promulgate content they personally deem "socially damaging" and they most definitely do not want someone from "over there" (including the UN) to define what "socially damaging" means.
> 
> I believe there are clearly some - a minority overall - that want that, and the intensity of their desire for it can make it seem like they are more like a majority. 

I guess our experiences differ.  

> Here again, you are giving an example of people taking positions that you don't like, and as a consequence dropping support for the political systems giving those people voice. 

Well, no, not really.  I was merely observing that early in my career, I had certain preconceived notions and biases about what people who used the Internet actually wanted and that my experiences, particularly outside of the US and Western Europe, were eye opening. I try to no longer make assumptions about what people actually want.

> Given a "constitutional" level discussion, what one usually sees happen is that people are willing to give up their desires in terms of what content they might wish to censor in order to keep the content they like free, and vice versa.

I suppose I am a bit less optimistic than you. I have seen people, including those in the US and other 'liberal democracies', be quite insistent that particular content was non-negotiable due to national laws, cultural mores, religious sentiment, etc.

> There is no intrinsic reason why the more powerful business interests should be permanently aligned with a free internet. 

Well, no reason other than self-interest. In an open market, those who desire more freedom in the services they obtain are free to 'vote with their feet'.  It may not be coincidental that the governments that tend to be pushing greater control are the same governments that are more resistant to telecom/Internet market reforms.

> The very same people that you see strongly pushing for content control at a governmental level can exert parallel control via boycotts and so forth to persuade an internet business to adopt parallel types of censorship.  Certainly no business will understand why it must provide a forum or allow its resources to be utilized to criticize the business itself, and they will act to squash such criticism.

Actually, at least historically, I believe the opposite has been true.  Most large scale ISPs have fought quite strenuously to avoid being seen as in control of content that flows through their networks, desiring some form of "common carrier" status.

> It's not a question of IF there will be worldwide government/governance, but a question of WHO will be the government/governors. The global nature of the structure of the internet guarantees that.Technical-level isolation such as countries sealing themselves off from the worldwide internet are attempts based on sovereignty concerns (even if misguided) to replace the complex of mostly business interests that rule the internet with the local dictatorship or democracy, as the case may be. 

Again, I am less optimistic.  In a world governed by sovereign nation-states driven by their own self-interests (whether those interests are the dictator's or the people's), I fear the most likely stable end-state of "Internet governance" is an interconnection of independently mediated national networks, with each network having their own policies about what is acceptable use/content, blocking all other use/content.  I personally feel the multi-stakeholder approach in which governments are just one of an array of interests is an attempt to balance the nation-state tendency to focus on national interests with other, more global interests (business, civil society, technical, etc).

Regards,
-drc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121028/bbf31738/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t